On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:34 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:40:51PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > I think the names "pci_device_is_present()" and > > "mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available()" contribute to the problem > > because they make promises that can't be kept -- all we can say is > > that the device *was* present, but we know whether it is *still* > > present. Bjorn, In the patch we are using '!' (i.e. not operation) of pci_device_is_present(), which is logically same as pci_device_is absent, and it is same for mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available(). My understanding is that, you want us to rename these functions for better readability Is that correct ? > Oops, I meant "we DON'T know whether it is still present." > > > I think it would be better if the interfaces were something > > like "pci_device_is_absent()" because that gives a result we can rely > > on. If that returns true, we know the device is definitely gone. > > > > Bjorn
